<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN" "http://www.w3c.org/TR/1999/REC-html401-19991224/loose.dtd">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=Content-Type content="text/html; charset=iso-8859-1">
<META content="MSHTML 6.00.6000.16809" name=GENERATOR></HEAD>
<BODY style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #ffffff" bgColor=#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>For reasons of health and sanity I sort of don't
want to get too involved in the recriminations about the Great Malvern judgment
- which is absurd, and a huge disappointment to the ringers and parish - but
feel that a few comments need to be made after the initial flurry of postings. I
have read through the judgment itself (albeit at speed) and it's not all bad
news for ringers and bell restoration - even though it's a mighty blow for Great
Malvern right now.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>First, let's be clear about what the judgment does
and doesn't mean - bearing in mind that it applies at two levels, first to the
specific instance of the Great Malvern frame and second to the wider issue of
principles governing the application of the faculty system for authorising work
in churches. It doesn't mean that no existing bellframe will ever be able to be
replaced again. It does, though, add to the body of precedent law affecting the
parameters for alterations to church fabric and the definition of "acceptable
proof of need". The judgment does actually contain some pretty positive
stuff about the scope for changes and improvements to churches</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Second, it seems to me (maybe echoing Clarrie's
comments) that the problem for Great Malvern is that the case for replacing the
frame has not been convincingly made in the tight parameters that the Chancellor
feels need to be applied in such cases. Rightly or wrongly, the Chancellor has
taken the view that arguments based on cost are (to summarise) incapable of
reliable analysis, second that the question of "why not repair?" has been
insuffficiently addressed, and thirdly that it was not proved that a repair
scheme would be unsatisfactory to the ringers. Perceived weaknesses in the
evidence presented - rather than the logic applied - are at least in part
the cause of the outcome.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Thirdly, the final judgment almost reads like the
toss of a coin at the end of a generally well argued and reasonable summary of
the evidence presented. It certainly reads oddly against what has gone before.
Maybe there is scope for challenge in an "if you've agreed this" then "how
can you argue that" analysis. </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What seems clear to me is:</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>1. That the arguments we use in such cases need to
be sharpened up considerably to make a better case for replacement (rather than
repair) in cases such as this</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>2. That we ought to be able to use some of the more
positive stuff in this judgment to do just that</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>3. That we need to avoid (in wider public arenas at
least) a knee-jerk reaction to this, but to identify real weaknesses (not just
irritations) in the judgment to help mount an appeal </FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>What needs to be done to help Great Malvern here is
another matter but, sadly, the CCCBR seems to be a toothless tiger in such
matters. It is an indictment that the joint meetings with EH and the CBC failed
to identify a satisfactory outcome to this long before it reached a consistory
court and resulted in a judgment that could adversely affect other schemes.
</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>Not pretending this offers any answers or comfort -
more hoping that something positive may yet come from this.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>And, don't get me wrong, I do think this is a very
bad ruling! But losing a battle doesn't necessarily mean losing the
war</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=Arial size=2>CP</FONT></DIV><!--End group email --></BODY></HTML>